by Orichá » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:20 pm
ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:02 pm
Lucky Lucan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:31 pm
Orphan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:57 pm
The problem with Cox , in riposte to all these well-meaning but misguided eulogies about her, is that the vast majority of the children in her care were not orphans - like many of the orphanages in Cambodia 85% + are not orphans.
Not sure where you are getting the statistic from but it doesn't mean a lot. The reason many kids are in orphanages is because their (living) parents are incapable of looking after them. They could be destitute, disabled, have serious substance abuse issues, mental problems etc. Some children are taken away from abusive parents for their own safety, others are disabled themselves or have ongoing health issues the parents can't deal with.
I remember a figure of c. 75% and that would have been from a unicef report about 6 years ago.
What you said is all correct but many of these are reasons for short term separation while the families are assisted to rehabilitate. But lots of orphanages have kids in there for years and years with no efforts made in rehabilitation.
Those in orphanages who should be permanently separated from families are in the minority.
That said the situation is much better than it was 8-10 years ago. MOSAVY for all their faults have had some success here.
Based on your observations of the facts surrounding the deprived circumstances of broken families -- ie. parents incapable of raising their kids, who then end up in these good-hearted institutions -- well, wouldn't it have been so much better if their parents had never brought these poor kids into this world in the first place? ...Instead of needing institutions, proper prophylactic birth control should have been distributed by local authorities. My point simply being... without having such a great big surplus of kids from unviable homes, the hassle of having to establish "orphanages" in the first place certainly would have been prevented... Clearly, the name of orphanage here is a big misnomer for these Cambodian institutions, anyway...
But oh well, one dare not pontificate about how to reduce the world's over-population, rather than figuring out how to run orphanages... because, then one is only heartless, or a socialist, or whatever...
A great miracle indeed -- if you could find a way to teach impoverished peasants not to breed like rabbits... However, the ignorance of the poor everywhere loves a bleeding Western heart, alas...
[quote=ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ post_id=1012322 time=1594818127 user_id=42429]
[quote="Lucky Lucan" post_id=1012317 time=1594812684 user_id=30017]
[quote=Orphan post_id=1012309 time=1594803448]
The problem with Cox , in riposte to all these well-meaning but misguided eulogies about her, is that the vast majority of the children in her care were not orphans - like many of the orphanages in Cambodia 85% + are not orphans.
[/quote]
Not sure where you are getting the statistic from but it doesn't mean a lot. The reason many kids are in orphanages is because their (living) parents are incapable of looking after them. They could be destitute, disabled, have serious substance abuse issues, mental problems etc. Some children are taken away from abusive parents for their own safety, others are disabled themselves or have ongoing health issues the parents can't deal with.
[/quote]
I remember a figure of c. 75% and that would have been from a unicef report about 6 years ago.
What you said is all correct but many of these are reasons for short term separation while the families are assisted to rehabilitate. But lots of orphanages have kids in there for years and years with no efforts made in rehabilitation.
Those in orphanages who should be permanently separated from families are in the minority.
That said the situation is much better than it was 8-10 years ago. MOSAVY for all their faults have had some success here.
[/quote]
Based on your observations of the facts surrounding the deprived circumstances of broken families -- ie. parents incapable of raising their kids, who then end up in these good-hearted institutions -- well, wouldn't it have been so much better if their parents had never brought these poor kids into this world in the first place? ...Instead of needing institutions, proper prophylactic birth control should have been distributed by local authorities. My point simply being... without having such a great big surplus of kids from unviable homes, the hassle of having to establish "orphanages" in the first place certainly would have been prevented... Clearly, the name of orphanage here is a big misnomer for these Cambodian institutions, anyway...
But oh well, one dare not pontificate about how to reduce the world's over-population, rather than figuring out how to run orphanages... because, then one is only heartless, or a socialist, or whatever...
A great miracle indeed -- if you could find a way to teach impoverished peasants not to breed like rabbits... However, the ignorance of the poor everywhere loves a bleeding Western heart, alas...